Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

For whatever reason, the bradley has been the better anti tank performer.  I think there's a strong rationale for sending ukraine a tank killer (and a simpler vehicle, crewed by infantry) over a tank.  Ideally, they get both - though I wouldn't pick the abrams, if putin kept giving me tickets to the candystore.

It's a fuel-guzzler, to be sure (on the other hand, it can use a variety of fuels).

No matter which tank they go with -- and the Brits re already sending a squadron of Challenger IIs -- there will be training slowdowns due to both increased software demands and the addition of a loader position (which in the Chal II means loading 2-pc ammo, the M1 having 1-pc). The LeClerc might be as useful given that it's built in metric, meaning less conversion issues, plus it's got an autoloader, which won't require the creation of another MOS. But Macron seems as diffident as the rest about sending MBTs.

The one thing any MBT will have over the Bradley is AT reloads, given that the Bradley's anti-tank capability is ATGM-based and limited to, iirc, eight missiles. Chal II has 50 shots aboard, 40 rounds for the M1A1, and 42 for the Leo II. LeClerc, at 22, sits above the Brad but below the other tanks. Of course, guided ATGMs may well provide more accuracy and therefore hit-ratio.

No matter which MBTs are sent, training will be lengthy, I suspect, with the better software and systems being the main bottleneck -- but I've been wrong before, and Ukrainian soldiers seem highly motivated to learn quickly.

ETA:

This article details some of the arguments over supplying said tanks: https://mickryan.substack.com/p/the-great-tank-debate